BT save your sermons.....the seniors are always taken advantage of....and some need guidance....this isn't my first "rodeo" as Dr Phil would say..
for certain people gambling is an addiction........and there are those that CHOOSE to do that...impairing their health
so you are not talking to a beginner.....and no I am not addicted....just concerned ....and WADE tours.....they certainly will lose money won't they..
so it's not a win win situation....and yes....only time will tell....and it won't be a good result...
ooooo....those poor poor seniors!! ADDICTIONS.....OMG!!!! gambling addiction, tobacco addiction, drinking addiction, internet addiction, sex addiction, spending addiction, drug addiction, food addiction, cat addiction, dog addiction, new car addiction, money addiction..blah blah blah...............the list is endless.
PERSONAL CHOICE!!!!! Don't make me responsible for someone else's poor choices!!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
agree Senders.....BT is full of bull......if he is not a senior...someday he will be....and by then....they probably won't try to save them from any health
problems.
put out to pasture.....and won't have a choice...LOL
agree Senders.....BT is full of bull......if he is not a senior...someday he will be....and by then....they probably won't try to save them from any health
problems.
put out to pasture.....and won't have a choice...LOL
I think you misunderstood BT.....
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
agree Senders.....BT is full of bull......if he is not a senior...someday he will be....and by then....they probably won't try to save them from any health
problems.
put out to pasture.....and won't have a choice...LOL
I've made poor choices in my life and they are MINE....and MINE alone. I take full responsibility!!! So i'm NOT a victim!!! get it? But they don't consume me and I don't dwell on them....life moves forward...not backwards. And fyi I would NEVER want ANYONE put out to pasture, as you say, for health reasons!!! Not just senior patches.......ANYONE! I would and have helped them! I don't discriminate.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
discriminate is not the problem...it's your attitude....your choice to say and do what you want....BUT....you look at everyone else's views in a very negative
and bullish way....that's what I am saying...my opinion counts just as yours do....you like to be confrontational...there is no discussion with you that leads to
a somewhat compromise........you can boast and state your facts....but feelings count too.....the other bloggers seem to get their opinions out and yes you
disagree...have no problem with that......what I want to get across is a common sense look at things without being put down....I read between the lines..
and some of what you state is true....but......intelligence is not based only on facts but common sense from experience....no victim am I but a simple
person who has seen right and wrong.....and put my thoughts in what I believe is wrong....
The Mayor has apparently been reassuring City Council members that you can accept items such as the height and signage limits in the proposed C-3 waterfront district amendments, without looking closely into each issue, because any problems can be fixed by the Planning Commission in Site Plan and Special Use Permit review proceedings. As a retired lawyer who has done a significant amount of legal research and writing on zoning issues over the past few years, my good faith legal opinion is that His Honor is simply wrong.
Once legislated in a new version of C-3 standards, the signage, height and setback numbers will be virtually untouchable by the Planning Commission (unless, perhaps, it does a new environmental impact statement that justifies the changes as necessary "mitigation" of environmental harm).
The developer and Casino owner have no reason to contradict the Mayor's position, as they would be very pleased if you believe him and think you can just punt the hard decisions over to the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Chair Sharron Copolla voiced the same excuse for going along with the proposals referred to it by the Council at the January 14 special public meeting of the Commission. She said they could accept 110' building heights because the Commission could reduce that limit during Site Planning. I returned to the table to correct her on that point of law during the public comment portion of the meeting, saying that in general our State's judges won't let a board or commission reject plans that are within the standards and requirements of an adopted zoning ordinance, and surely not without a very good justification. Ms. Copolla responded, "we know that," but went on to make the same assertion again later in the Meeting, saying Commissioners had the power to reduce the maximum numbers during Site Plan review. Commissioner Wallinger immediately told Ms. Copolla, "No we don't."
Neither planning nor legal staffers for the City raised their voices to reject my legal conclusions at the Jan. 14th meeting. Also, despite their very active participation in the Planning Commission's public meeting, the Galesi and Rush St. lawyers did not object to my stance, as they would love the City Council to give them all they want now, in the misguided belief appropriate adjustments can be easily made later.
In addition, note that the amendments' height provision expressly says: "Maximum building height in the C-3 district shall not exceed 110 feet, and no Special Use Permit shall be required." The provision then goes on to address a specific situation when a building that tall might not be appropriate, saying "maximum building height in the C-3 district shall be limited to 56 feet within 100 feet" of a residential district. Both of these height provisions suggest the amendments do not intend to invest in the Planning Commission a broad authority to contradict the legislative limits.
To validate my legal conclusion, I spoke by phone with an attorney (my brother in Erie County) who has over 25 years of NYS zoning law experience. Because he most often represents homeowners against developers, he very much would want Ms. Copolla and Mayor McCarthy to be correct about fixing zoning excesses during the Site Plan or Special Use Permit review process. Nonetheless, he told me that the Planning Board would need, at the very least, to conduct a SEQRA review with an environmental impact statement as part of a Site Plan or Special Use permit review, in order for it to have authority to make a change like rejecting the maximum number set in the zoning ordinance.
Yes, in a Site Plan Review, the Planning Commission can dicker over style, colors, position and height of a particular sign, but in my best legal judgment it cannot say, "you must use less than 19,000 sq. ft. now that we have seen your actual plan", or "101' is just too tall at that spot." The Applicant would surely point out that they did use the 101 feet number regarding the casino hotel in the recently approved final environmental impact statement, and no review of that issue is appropriate.
You have the right to ask Corporation Counsel for a memorandum explaining his best, good faith legal conclusion on this topic, and not just a conclusion dictated by the Mayor.
In sum, letting the Planning Commission take the responsibility later for correcting any excesses in the proposed amendments is no excuse for a lack of diligence or courage by City Council members, or for acting in a rush due to the manufactured pressure to meet a non-existent deadline. It would be a poor gamble in a situation where the House Always Wins.
On the many the first-impression issues before you about casino and waterfront zoning, you need, and have the right and responsibility to demand from staff, a memorandum explaining the rationale for a particular proposal, its pros and cons, and the factual basis for staff's conclusions. Furthermore, you have the right to adjourn so that staff or the Galesi Group and Rush Street Gaming can provide the Council with more particulars, including renditions depicting planned buildings in scale, and the signage plans we were told had convinced Schenectady's Corporation Counsel that the minimum needed at the casino complex was 20,000 sq. ft. [Because staff had not noticed that Rush Street did not use Schenectady's formula when measuring the square footage of its desired pylon, Rush Street had overestimated the square footage of the pylon, and told the Planning Commission it could live with 19,000 sq. ft., the number in the latest version of the amendments to C-3.]
There is no rush, because there is no predicted date for issuance of the gaming license and there is much work that can be done without an amended zoning ordinance. Indeed, with all the preparation already done by such an experienced developer and casino operator, the two-year window for completing the casino after issuance of the license should be very doable.
Thank you for giving this complicated and highly significant zoning task the time and attention it deserves. For detailed discussion of issues raised by the zoning amendments, see the list of webpostings at http://tinyurl.com/CasinoZoning, which will be increased over the weekend.
To HistoricStockade@yahoogroups.com Please share the link below with fellow Stockade residents and people throughout Schenectady County (including elected leaders in Schenectady, Niskayuna, Gleville, Scotia, Rotterdam, and Dunesburg, etc.) who are probably unaware that the proposed C-3 Waterfront zoning amendments would take away the existing requirement that the owner of Mohawk Harbor permanently allow public access to the riverfront and make 10% of docking space available to the public during the day.
I have spelled out the details (in words and images) in the posting "amendments would axe access guarantee".
Neither the Mayor nor the Gazette have told the public about this important change. Individuals and families across this County need to know ASAP, so that they can get to the Public Hearing, Monday, Jan. 26, 2015, at City Hall, Room 209, and try to preserve their right to access to the riverfront.
Wonder if CDTA will be providing bus routes (day/night,24/7) to the casino, to funnel in the citys population to save them cab fare. This way CDTA can tout about increased ridership and the casino can get a larger income cut from the savings from the cab fare expense. Less expense to get there more to gamble with. Sounds like a WIN WIN to this writer.
Wonder if CDTA will be providing bus routes (day/night,24/7) to the casino, to funnel in the citys population to save them cab fare. This way CDTA can tout about increased ridership and the casino can get a larger income cut from the savings from the cab fare expense. Less expense to get there more to gamble with. Sounds like a WIN WIN to this writer.
speaking of CDTA.....was talking to a guy who's brother is a CDTA driver....they start at $16/hr? and they get government benefits?
maybe everyone else knew this....i'm just hearing about it.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
There is no rush, because there is no predicted date for issuance of the gaming license and there is much work that can be done without an amended zoning ordinance. Indeed, with all the preparation already done by such an experienced developer and casino operator, the two-year window for completing the casino after issuance of the license should be very doable.
David Giacalone
Where the rush comes in is that everyone will have already spent the projected casino tax revenue before the place is even open- Delay in the construction process toward the end actually gets funny because everyone will have their hand out before the money even comes.
Where the rush comes in is that everyone will have already spent the projected casino tax revenue before the place is even open- Delay in the construction process toward the end actually gets funny because everyone will have their hand out before the money even comes.
kinda sounds like the flooding that happened in the junction when the government failed to lower the water levels for fear of NYC losing electricity for a little while, so they screwed 'the hicks'.....
the water goes up the water goes down the money goes up the money goes down
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Odds slightly favor casinos in the region New poll finds majority like the idea, but most say they would not visit gambling sites By Matthew Hamilton Published 9:55 pm, Tuesday, July 29, 2014
A Time Warner Cable News/Siena College poll released in two parts on Monday and Tuesday shows that Capital Region residents are divided, 49 percent to 40 percent, in favor of casino development in the area. But 63 percent of the same voters say they're not likely to visit a regional casino.
The results echo those recorded at the ballot nine months ago, when Capital Region voters narrowly voted no on Proposition 1, the constitutional amendment authorizing the state to issue seven new casino licenses in select regions. The measure passed.
In the Capital Region alone, five casino proposals are currently on the table, and other locations have been pitched.
Thirty-four percent said traffic problems would be the biggest negative impact from casinos, and 27 percent view a potential increase in crime as the top issue.
However, a majority of voters see casinos as a boon to state and local government revenues and job creation, the two largest positive impacts they anticipate.
While a majority of Capital Region voters (66 percent) said they wouldn't gamble at all at a new regional casino, they were more bullish on using a casino for other things. Sixty-one percent said they would at least be somewhat likely to attend a concert held at a gambling hall, and 54 percent said they'd be at least somewhat likely to patronize a casino restaurant.
The new data come from voters polled in the three regions — the Capital Region, Southern Tier/Finger Lakes and Catskills/Hudson Valley — where 17 casino developers are vying for up to four licenses.
Logged
ADDICTIONS.....OMG!!!! gambling addiction, tobacco addiction, drinking addiction, internet addiction, sex addiction, spending addiction, drug addiction, food addiction, cat addiction, dog addiction, new car addiction, money addiction..blah blah blah...............the list is endless.
